Editorial: Cities diverting zoo tax funds should stop defying the will of voters

Jan. 21, 2013

That some cities in Wayne County are siphoning off funds generated by a millage to support the Detroit Zoo may not violate the letter of the law -- but it's pretty clear that the move defies the will of voters who cast ballots to support the zoo.

Voters adopted a millage to raise funds for the Detroit Zoo in 2008; a similar millage designed to support the Detroit Institute of Arts passed in 2012.

Cities and townships in Oakland and Macomb counties have paid up without question. But about 17 municipalities in Wayne County are balking; they contend that local Tax Increment Finance Authority their communities established to fund downtown development are entitled to some portion of the zoo millage proceeds, and that they'll be entitled to a similar cut when the DIA millage kicks in later this year.

Here's where it gets dense: A Tax Increment Finance Authority, commonly called a TIF, is a state-created entity that can capture a percentage of tax revenue property taxes within a defined district, generally a downtown or special development area.

The communities collecting the zoo tax argue that because the zoo millage is a part of the total property tax collection it's fair for the TIF to collect a cut.

Since 2008, the 17 Wayne communities have clawed back about $756,000 generated by the zoo millage. Taylor took in the largest sum, collecting $35,209.

Zoo proponents argue that voters who adopted the millage clearly intended to support the zoo, and that local communities are misappropriating funds. They point to an informational letter -- not an official opinion -- from the Michigan Attorney General's office. The zoo's director, Ron Kagan, is making noise about suing communities who continue to collect the zoo revenue.

Even risking such a fight is bad policy for the renegade Wayne communities, who would likely spend more to defend their practice than they stand to gain if it's vindicated. And snatching money from beloved cultural institutions won't endear them to anyone.

But there's another point to keep in mind: Cities are squeezed. Property taxes have plummeted, state revenue sharing has been slashed, and the personal property tax on which many industrialized communities depend is on the way out. Collecting sufficient revenue to support basic city services -- not to mention quality-of-life amenities like a well-developed downtown -- has become increasingly difficult for a growing number of cities. It's no wonder that some communities are taking what they can get, where they can get it.

If the problem lies in the language of the TIF statute, a legislative fix is the most decisive solution to the problem. Zoo and museum proponents should lobby the state Legislature for clarifying language.

It's clear that voters intended to provide financial support for those institutions; providing statutory support for that intent should be a no-brainer.